Hillsong Responds to Concerns After Choir Director Comes Out as ‘Gay,’ Engaged to Another Member

Photo Credit: Now the End Begins
Photo Credit: Now the End Begins

NEW YORK — Reports that a Hillsong choir director (or former choir director) has come out as “gay” and is engaged to another member has raised controversy nationwide and has elicited a response from the leader of the international chain of churches.

Josh Canfield, a Broadway performer, told Playbill earlier this year that he had become engaged to his boyfriend, Reed Kelly. Both had been featured on the reality show “Survivor: San Juan del Sur—Blood vs. Water.” He outlined that he is a choir director at Hillsong New York City and that he had admitted his homosexuality to his church.

“[I thought], ‘I need to be truthful with everyone,'” Canfield said. “I became truthful with my church. I’m a part of Hillsong NYC. I’m one of their choir directors. I also sing on their worship team.”

But he stated that after coming out to his congregation, “nothing changed.”

“They’ve been amazing as well,” Canfield explained. “Nothing has changed there now that I’m completely out and with Reed. He sings in the choir as well.”

On Sunday, a blog reported about the information afresh, lamenting that Hillsong New York City, led by Carl Lentz, “allow[s] an openly and unrepentantly gay couple to lead their choir.” The post went viral, generating over 63,ooo shares and generating concern from Christians nationwide.

Following the attention to the matter, Hillsong leader Brian Houston issued a statement about the situation, stating that both men are no longer in the choir. It is not clear as to whether the men voluntarily left or were ousted by leadership.

  • Connect with Christian News

“I wish to correct reports that Hillsong church has ‘an openly gay couple directing a choir’ at our New York City campus,” Houston wrote. “Hillsong’s position on homosexuality and gay marriage has not changed and is consistent with Scripture. As I have stated previously, I believe the writings of Paul are clear on this subject.”

“Several months ago when one of our choir directors made an unexpected public statement regarding his engagement to a man who sometimes sang in the choir, it was a complete surprise to us as well,” he continued. “It is my understanding that they have not been involved in an active leadership or ministry role since.”

Houston added that although the information has come to light, “[W]e still love them and acknowledge that they—like all of us—are on a journey, and our role as a church is to assist them on this journey with grace and compassion.”

He said in a separate blog post that although homosexuals are welcome to attend the services, they are not permitted to serve in leadership roles.

As previously reported, Hillsong NYC leader Carl Lentz has raised concern over his lack of clarity on what constitutes sinful behavior, including homosexuality. Lentz says he does not like preaching about moral debates and once told Katie Couric that Jesus “very rarely” talked about “morality and social issues.”

“My Bible says, be attentive to individual needs,” Lentz told his congregation in a sermon, which was publicized by Huffington Post. “So I’m not gonna make polarizing political statements about certain things in our Christian community right now. No matter who says what, we won’t be pressured into giving blanket statements to individual needs. Never.”

Lentz is also known for his friendship with pop star Justin Bieber, who reportedly was baptized by Lentz last year. Celebrities often stop by Hillsong NYC to experience Lentz’s unorthodox messages, which are often replete with street slang and modern lingo.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • bowie1

    If he was singled out I can see he has a case especially since a ball field is hardly a government property.

  • Emmanuel

    Everything Jesus in SF is seen as an offense and needs to be ratified. When you travel to SF, be warned, they HATE Jesus.

  • Homer for God

    Ok Ok where are the atheists comments? You know “seperation of church and baseball” or whatever argument they create in their mind to validate thy LAPD’s actions.
    This is proof positive that the followers of Christ are truly being persecuted day after day. It will only get worse and I’m afraid it will get to the point of these persecutions will be fodder for comedy in society.
    I urge my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ to continue to wear your armor of protection because judgement is coming soon and we need to stand up for God and deliver His good news to as many people as we can.
    I will continue to pray for this man as should we all. Time is short.
    God Bless

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      “separation of church and baseball”

      One of your best. 🙂

  • Reason2012

    The continue to prove that Christ is the only truth of God as the unsaved world hates the truth of Christ.

    John 15:18-19 “[Jesus said] If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. (19) If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.”

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      Imagine the result if he had held up a sign with John 14:6 on it! Not only would they arrest him, but they would force him to bake a gay cake under threat of torture! 🙂

      • Rev.

        Truth and nothing but truth!

      • StereoMan

        Really? Has that happened anywhere else on earth?

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          Where is your sense of humor, StereoMan?!? Did you leave it the same place you left your non-replies to the proofs for the existence of God? 🙂

          Besides, you should be enjoying your moment here: no more John 3:16 signs to remind you of the God you deny exists, but Whom you still hate nevertheless. 🙂

          There is no Athei-stapo! And stop asking so many questions! Good hearing from you, oh insecure one. 🙂

          • StereoMan

            I HATE God? News to me. I find it very interesting that fundamentalist Christians are always telling me what I believe rather than simply asking me, which to me seems so much easier and straightforward.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            My, you are the sensitive one today, StereoMan! You aren’t going to feed me to the lions or make me bake a gay cake are you? 🙂

            I know, I know, “There is no Gaystapo, and stop asking so many questions!” I know your lines by now.

            Rather than being so defensive, embrace your fun side today.

          • StereoMan

            It isn’t that I don’t have a sense of humour, I just fail to see where the humour is when I’m being told I hate God.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Just giving you the peer-reviewed science, StereoMan:

            “A new set of studies in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology finds that atheists and agnostics report anger toward God either in the past or anger focused on a hypothetical image of what they imagine God must be like.

            At first glance, this finding seemed to reflect an error. How could people be angry with God if they did not believe in God? Reanalyses of a second dataset revealed similar patterns: Those who endorsed their religious beliefs as “atheist/agnostic” or “none/unsure” reported more anger toward God than those who reported a religious affiliation.”

          • StereoMan

            LOL and who did this study? Barbwire? Winteryknight? You know, someone really fair and balanced like them?

            It’s such a simple and straightforward concept to me that you might not think a God exists. But I’m amazed at how often I’m being told that He does and that I actually hate him.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “There is no God and I hate Him” is the mantra of most a-theists, whether they know it or not, that is how they behave. And that study shows it. That is what brings you so often to a Christian site – the uncertainty you have in your blind faith a-theism.

            As for His existence, you have been given 4 great proofs and have put up nothing on the side of the No God Hypothesis. A review of the 4 proofs:

            Kalam Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God:

            Premise 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
            Premise 2. The universe began to exist.
            Conclusion: Therefore, the universe had a Cause.

            Moral Argument for the Existence of God:

            Premise 1: If there is no God, then objective moral values do not exist.
            Premise 2: Objective evil exists.
            Conclusion 1: Therefore, objective moral values DO exist.
            Conclusion 2: Therefore, God exists.

            Fine-Tuning Argument for the Existence of God:

            Premise 1: The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
            Premise 2: It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
            Conclusion: Therefore, it is due to design.

            Argument from Unconditioned Reality (not a syllogism but a
            step-wise proof):

            1. There exists at least one unconditioned reality.
            2. Unconditioned reality itself is the simplest possible reality.
            3. Unconditioned reality itself is absolutely unique.
            4. Unconditioned reality itself is unrestricted.
            5. The one Unconditioned Reality is the continuous Creator of all else that is.

            Waiting for all that good philosophy, logic, science, cosmology, and math to tell me that the No God Hypothesis is even remotely plausible. You are supposedly on the “rational” side, right?

          • StereoMan

            Why is God, rather than the universe, the only thing allowed to exist without a cause?

            Virtual particles pop in and out of existence all the time all
            around us. Even if the universe had a cause, why would it have to be God? What’s your evidence?

            Moral values exist without God just fine. Humans cooperate and have empathy because we evolved as social animals. Lots of other animals do the same.

            The fine-tuning of the universe only appears so because we
            evolved to fit it. There may be any number of other universes without any life whatsoever. Since the vast majority of our universe is uninhabitable to us, it’s not very fine-tuned anyway.

            Even if there is a great intelligence that made the universe,
            why would it be a primitive goat-herders’ deity involving itself in tribal spats with the Amakelites?

            William Lane Craig? FFS not Kalamity Bill’s garbage again.

            Premise 1: The idea of Aristotle and wrong. Particles and their anti-particles spring into existence the whole time.

            Premise 2: Only the bit of the universe we exist within had some sort of start point, that does not mean that the multi-dimensional complexity from which it sprung had a start point, nor is one necessary.

            Conclusion: wrong from first principles. Next:

            Premise 1: Objective moral values do not exist

            Premise 2: Objective evil does not exist, it is all relative

            Conclusion 1: Nope, this conclusion is question begging.

            Conclusion 2: Does not follow, not only that but it limits God because God would be required to be moral. Next.

            Premise 1: Fine tuning argument is false, the vast majority of
            our universe is inimical to life. It is even possible to conceive of universes which are completely open to life.

            Premise 2: Why is this not due to chance? There may be “n” universes elsewhere that had no life and there may be a smaller but still significant number that have more life.

            Conclusion: does not follow. Kalamity Bill = William Lane Craig, a second rate thinker who believes he is a philosopher.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Why is God, rather than the universe, the only thing allowed to exist without a cause?”

            He is not. If the universe were past eternal, then the universe would NOT require a cause. Sadly, for you, the evidence of the last 150 years (Big Bang, cosmic background radiation, 2nd Law of Thermo, positive inflation rate of the universe, and BGV Theorem) has gone away from an eternal universe and toward our universe having a beginning. (That is why Premise 2 is not being attacked as much by a-theists these days as it was 40-50 years ago in my youth.)

            “Virtual particles pop in and out of existence all the time all around us.”

            No they do not! Actual particles, quarks and stuff, go into and out of existence due to the rearrangement of QM fields, which are NOT nothing. They have a cause.

            “Even if the universe had a cause, why would it have to be God? What’s your evidence?”

            We know that since space, time, and matter had a beginning at the Big Bang, this Cause MUST transcend space, time, and matter. In other words, the Cause must be spaceless, timeless, and non-material. We also know that this Cause MUST be immensely powerful, right, in order to create 100 billion galaxies out of (literally) nothing?!? We can also surmise that this
            Cause must be personal, in some sense, as It has chosen to create, and only personal agents can create, to our knowledge. Moreover, this Cause has chosen to create (or allow the creation of) persons (that’s us!) – indicating strongly that It is personal.

            This Cause is also self-existing, right? We know that either the
            universe (or multiverses, if they exist) are self-existing OR the Cause of same is self-existing. (Those are really the 2 options we have.) But, since the secular data points toward the universe having a beginning (and overwhelmingly so), then we must conclude that the First Uncaused Cause is self-existing. There is also a way to argue that this Cause is immutable or changeless. Let’s not get into that too much, but it’s worth thinking about on your own, OK?

            So, we have: spaceless, timeless, non-material, immensely powerful, personal free will, self-existing, changeless. That sounds a LOT like Yahweh, no? All we are really missing is omnispresent, omniscient, and holy. There are arguments there as well, particularly for the first two. But, we have Something that looks a LOT like the Judeo-Christian God.

            “Moral values exist without God just fine.”

            We are talking about OBJECTIVE moral values and duties. No shifting the goalposts.

            “The fine-tuning of the universe only appears so because we evolved to fit it.”

            Not true: the fine-tuning argument shows the improbability of life of any kind evolving in this universe, whether we evolved or not.

            “Since the vast majority of our universe is uninhabitable to us, it’s not very fine-tuned anyway.”

            Also false. Both galactic habitable zones and circumstellar habitable zones show that these are necessary for the existence of any life whatsoever just here on earth. The currently uninhabitable portions of the solar system, galaxies, and universe still feed the other portions – in terms of necessary
            conditions for life here on earth. Our moon, while currently uninhabited, stabilizes the tilt of our rotation. The Sun, while not habitable at all, is quite useful – it is the perfect star for us to be orbiting – in terms of size, type, power output and stability, and distance from us. Jupiter does an excellent job of sweeping asteroids out of our way and also of helping keep our planetary orbit more stable, as its gravitational effect on us is not inconsequential. Moving out into the galaxy, we need those heavy elements from supernovae, but, of course do not want to be too close to them when they occur. Our location in the outskirts of the Milky Way is perfect! Many galaxies are largely uninhabitable due to their star densities, but do a great job of
            feeding other galaxies with stellar material – absolutely essential to life here.

            “William Lane Craig? FFS not Kalamity Bill’s garbage again.”

            Ad hominem.

            “Premise 1: The idea of Aristotle and wrong. Particles and their anti-particles spring into existence the whole time.”

            As shown above, they do not do so uncaused. They are caused by the rearrangements of QM fields, which are not nothing.

            “Premise 2: Only the bit of the universe we exist within had some sort of start point, that does not mean that the multi-dimensional complexity from which it sprung had a start point, nor is one necessary.”

            False. The BGV Theorem also applies to the (unobserved and probably unobservable) multiverse IF it even exists. The multiverse MUST also have a beginning.

            “Premise 2: Objective evil does not exist, it is all relative”

            OK, but then you don’t get to call Christians who are against SSM “evil” or “bigoted,” because if there is no objective evil, moral values are just ice cream flavors. You can deny Premise 2 but you cannot live it out – as has been shown by your many postings here.

            “Conclusion 1: Nope, this conclusion is question begging.”

            False. Conclusion 1 follows from identity with Premise 2. The logic is good.

            “Conclusion 2: Does not follow, not only that but it limits God because God would be required to be moral.”

            False. Conclusion 2 follows from Modus Tollens with Premise 1 and Conclusion 1. Please learn some basic logic.

            “Premise 1: Fine tuning argument is false, the vast majority of our universe is inimical to life. It is even possible to conceive of universes which are completely open to life.”

            Which part of Premise 1 are you denying on fine-tuning? Are you adding to the 3 possibilities?

            “Premise 2: Why is this not due to chance?”

            The odds, according to a-theist Roger Penrose, of fine-tuning by chance, are 1 in 10^(10^123). There are only 10^80 subatomic particles in the entire universe. (That number forms the limit of mathematical impossibility.) Therefore, it is mathematically impossible that the fine-tuning of our universe is due to chance.

            “Conclusion: does not follow.”

            The logic is impeccable.

            “Kalamity Bill = William Lane Craig, a second rate thinker who believes he is a philosopher.”

            Ad hominem. And a poor one at that, given how many times he crushes a-theists in debates – even according to his opponents and audience votes. 🙂

          • StereoMan

            So everything has to have a cause, except for the one thing you make an exception for. Hell, why not claim that cause has to have a long white beard too? With leaps like this, you could be an Olympic long jumper.

            We have no concept of cause and effect outside our Universe any more than we have a concept of time outside of it. For all we know, a universe-creating particle decayed into a universe. Or daughter particles of a universe un-decayed into a universe.

            “We know that since space, time, and matter had a beginning at the Big Bang, this Cause MUST transcend space, time, and matter.”

            That doesn’t follow at all. Things are created by temporary
            circumstances and by chance all the time. Why would the cause not be ephemeral?

            “That sounds a LOT like Yahweh, no?”

            No, because there is nothing in your picture that suggests
            anything other than the creation of the universe. There is no suggestion here of the idea of a god that continually intervenes in the affairs of humans.

            I see someone needs a lesson in the difference between a valid argument and a sound one.

            I work for a major corporation.
            I wear a company-issue shirt to work that has the company logo on it.
            Therefore, I work for that company.

            This is a sound argument. All of the premises are true, and the conclusion follows from the premises and is also true.

            I wear black lipstick
            I have been known to wear eye shadow
            Therefore, I am a woman

            This is neither a valid nor sound argument. While the premises are true, the conclusion is false, and does not necessarily follow from the premises.

            All grey things are cats
            I am holding a grey thing
            Therefore, I am holding a cat.

            This is a valid argument, but not a sound one. If the premises
            were true, then the conclusion would follow from them. However, the premises are, in fact, NOT true. This is the kind of argument you keep using.

            I do approve of your attempted use of logic. Now you just need to learn to use it properly.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “So everything has to have a cause, except for the one thing you make an exception for. ”

            No, it COULD have been the universe that did not have a cause. It just so happened that 150 years of data shows that it does have a beginning and thus a cause. It is not special pleading in any sense of the word. I gave you the metaphysical argument for why this universe-Cause looks like Yahweh. I built that up from the science of the Big Bang and the metaphysics of Kalam – NOT from the Bible or anything. No presuppositions involved.

            “We have no concept of cause and effect outside our Universe any more than we have a concept of time outside of it.”

            That’s not a problem for a multitude of reasons, foremost being that the cause did not happen until the moment of the Big Bang at which moment time began to exist. So, it is actually a non-issue. I am NOT assuming time exists without creation, but, of course, there could be a metaphysical time that existed that is different from the physical time that we experience. It is a very good possibility, although I am not dogmatic on it. But the creation of time could coincide exactly with the universe being caused into existence, and metaphysical time would not even be necessary under that. (That seems to be what the Big Bang says anyway.) You would have to defeat these two arguments, and one more that I am holding in reserve, because I do not think it will be necessary to use it.

            “For all we know, a universe-creating particle decayed into a universe.”

            Not possible since matter began to exist at the Big Bang. And, if you go the multiverse route, the BGV Theorem still requires it to have a beginning and we are one step back to square one.

            “Things are created by temporary circumstances and by chance all the time.”

            But not uncaused.

            “No, because there is nothing in your picture that suggests anything other than the creation of the universe. There is no suggestion here of the idea of a god that continually intervenes in the affairs of humans.”

            I said that the metaphysical requirements imposed by Kalam lead to a Cause with the same attributes as Yahweh. And, that is both true and unaddressed. I made no argument for the intervention of humans or not.

            “If the premises were true, then the conclusion would follow from them. However, the premises are, in fact, NOT true. This is the kind of argument you keep using.”

            I am glad that you understand that the arguments I am using are logical ones. Just one problem: I have provided evidence for all of my premises several times for you, and you have provided no counterfactuals, or very little. You just don’t want to grant the premises, possibly for other reasons. But, what little you have presented to try to defeat my premises has failed. The fact that you don’t WANT these arguments to be true bears no warrant on their veracity. But, I truly am glad that you recognize that they are logical in form. Good talking with you tonight, StereoMan!

          • Elie Challita

            Actually, the Big Bang doesn’t prove that the universe isn’t timeless: It proves that there was an event which, from our point of view, spawned the universe which we can observe. Key word, observe.

            The Big Bang could easily be an event which spawned our own particular universe out of an eternal multiverse. Or it could be a cyclical event in which the universe expands before re-contracting down the line.

            Another point, no cause has to be “self-willing” in order to create the universe. Gravity doesn’t pull objects down because it is self willing. If there are laws governing the inception and expansion of a universe, then the very existence of those laws make the inception and expansion inevitable as opposed to it being a conscious choice.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “The Big Bang could easily be an event which spawned our own particular universe out of an eternal multiverse. ”

            Indeed. Sadly, for you, the unobserved (and arguably unobservable) multiverse, if it exists, is still subject to the BGV Theorem – thus, requiring a cosmic beginning. So, Kalam is merely backed up one step, in that dubious case, and is still in play. Personally, I, as a Christian, kind of hope that there IS a multiverse, because that just makes God that much bigger and His design, through fine-tuning, that much more impressive.

            ” Or it could be a cyclical event in which the universe expands before re-contracting down the line.”

            The BGV Theorem defeats the cyclical universe too. See this technical paper by Mithani and Vilenkin (just take the space out):

            http://arxiv .org/pdf/1204.4658.pdf

            That paper also shoots down the emergent (cosmic egg) universe which is the subject of a recent cosmology, although one can make the argument against actual past infinities to do this as well. Every Christian (and a-theist) should know the names of the brilliant agnostics Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin, because their theorem really created an environment of desperation on the part of the God deniers, I say so respectfully.

            “If there are laws governing the inception and expansion of a universe, then the very existence of those laws make the inception and expansion inevitable as opposed to it being a conscious choice.”

            That is not actually true, because at some point, there is nothing (no matter, anti-matter, space, vacuum, QM fields or anything) from which the Big Bang, or the multiverse if it exists arose from. Unless you are saying that abstract physical laws existed without (can’t say “before”) creation? And, the burden to show that would fall on you, and be quite substantial, I might add. Nice talking with you!

          • Elie Challita

            Actually, the BGV theorem doesn’t mean that an expanding universe has an external and reasoning cause. It merely states that an expanding universe has to have a beginning, and that this beginning must be explained by laws other than the ones governing that universe.

            It’s a long leap of faith from “inflationary physics cannot account for the initial expansion of the universe” to “The expanding universe had an ex nihilo cause, and that cause was the god first worshiped by a Middle Eastern tribe”.

            I don’t know what preceded or caused the Big Bang. If I did, I’d be busy polishing my Nobel prize instead of arguing on the interwebs. But I can pretty much assure you that you don’t know either on any scientific level. To prove Craig’s understanding of the Kalam argument correct, you still need to prove the following propositions:

            1- The universe had a singular point of origin
            2- Nothing existed before that point of origin
            3- There was a cause to the sudden appearance of that point of origin
            4- That cause is a self-willed, omniscient, all-powerful entity who spoke to a middle eastern tribe, hated shellfish and gay people, and raped a 14 year old virgin to make her pregnant with his son.

            Proposition 1 is the Big Bang, which you’d probably translate as “Let there be light”.
            Proposition 2 is completely unproven at the moment. Simply because we don’t know what could have preceded this, or cannot imagine a purely physical system that could have preceded this, doesn’t mean that this purely physical system doesn’t exist.
            Proposition 3 is dependent on 2. The existence of a necessary cause presupposes the necessity of a cause, and our complete ignorance of the possibilities of physics before that point of origin preclude us from making any assertions as to what necessities might have existed then.
            Finally, point number 4 is where creationists lose all credibility for me: Even if you were to prove all 3 first points, the assumption that the cause is some sort of disembodied eternal and all powerful mind is essentially impossible to prove unless you can come up with a repeatable and falsifiable way to either contact or observe that mind.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “1- The universe had a singular point of origin”

            The universe does NOT have to have a singular point of origin – it just must not be past eternal. Even the Hawking smooth, but not pointwise, curvature of the Big Bang does not allow for past eternality:

            “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning” Alexander Vilenkin (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

            “2- Nothing existed before that point of origin”

            A. It is improper for you to use the word “before” in that statement. Time did not exist without creation. Neither did matter, space, or energy – the things that most scientists operate on, unless you are the supernatural kind. 🙂

            B. No theist is making the claim that nothing existed without creation. Obviously, if a Cause existed, that is not nothing. But, it might be fair to say that the a-theist is making such a claim when he says that the universe (miraculously?) popped into existence out of nothing uncaused by anything. 🙂

            “3- There was a cause to the sudden appearance of that point of origin”

            That is what the 2 premises of Kalam, if true, necessarily lead to. Thus far, you have supplied no good evidence to refute the 2 premises, and I have supplied an abundance of evidence in favor of the 2 premises.

            “4- That cause is a self-willed, omniscient, all-powerful entity who spoke to a middle eastern tribe, hated shellfish and gay people, and raped a 14 year old virgin to make her pregnant with his son.”

            Strawman, and a pitiful one at that. (I know, I used to do it all the time too – I was the king of strawmen. :-))

            Furthermore, under your a-theism, there are no grounds whatsoever for objective moral values and duties. So, rape, for instance, is not objectively wrong in your worldview. It happens all the time in the animal kingdom, and you are just an evolved animal on your view. And, your “pope” and “cardinals” agree with me here:

            “In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication,
            some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, or any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless
            indifference… DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.” (Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (1995))

            “Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear — and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either.” A-theist William Provine

            “The position of the modern evolutionist is that humans have an awareness of morality because such an awareness of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate when someone says, ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond
            themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory.” (Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” in The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), pp. 262-269).

            You really are not doing the best job of covering up for StereoMan’s incompetence. 🙂

            “the cause is some sort of disembodied eternal and all powerful mind is essentially impossible to prove unless you can come up with a repeatable and falsifiable way to either contact or observe that mind.”

            Now, see, here is where the saying “Philosophy buries its undertakers” comes from. 🙂 Of course, one cannot prove, using scientific methods ALONE, the existence of a non-material, timeless, spaceless being any more than science ALONE cannot prove the existence of love, a mind that is nonequivalent to the brain, the number 2, predicate logic, etc – all the non-material things that you believe in, presumably, but cannot prove the existence of using science. This is why science will always play small ball in comparison with philosophy.

            Consider this statement: “The only objective truths are those that can be verified using science.” Do you see the problem with this statement? It is self-refuting, because it is an objective truth claim that cannot itself be verified by science! That is small ball. 🙂

            Thus, the ONLY way to prove the existence of God is using philosophy, with science as a secondary player.

            And, as I have provided a reasonably significant amount of evidence, thus far, in favor of the God Hypothesis, in return, I have seen nothing presented on the side of the No God Hypothesis, for which you owe a burden. Great talking with you though!

          • Elie Challita

            1- Splitting hairs. Singular point of origin does not mean a physical point, but if you keep reducing the physical and temporal universe to its smallest possible existence, you will eventually reach a single instant at which the smallest possible universe existed.
            2- A) You really don’t know that because you simply have no way to model a pre-time pre-energy universe.
            2-B) but you are making that claim. If a god was the root cause of creation, then that god necessarily existed pre-creation. That god then becomes subject to time as well because it must have known a period of creation and a period without it. And then you’re just stuck justifying why an external god can exist, but other causes can’t.
            3- I am not attempting to disprove the two premises. I am saying, however, that even if the Kalam argument were true it does not necessarily follow that whatever existed pre-creation is a god in any classical sense of the word.
            4- More of a comedic exaggeration than a strawman, but as you wish. Sudden shift to morality rather than cosmology? I’ll bite:
            I don’t need to prove objective morality. I don’t even understand what objective morality means. Does an act need to be wrong, or even meaningful and impactful, on a cosmic and eternal level in order for it to matter? Rape is wrong because it is a violation of mental and physical integrity and choice. So is murder. They are transgressions against another being. You can’t rape a rock no more than you can murder a piece of plastic.
            And the same applies to “objective truths”. Before you can even posit something as true, you have to agree to a certain definition of truth. For example, that which exists. And to realize that this truth exists, you have to be able to observe or measure its existence, be it by its cause or by its effect.
            To take your argument on love: I cannot put “love” in a beaker and distill it, but I can measure the brain activity and chemical discharges of someone greeting their lover, and I can examine their behavior and conclude that some psychological phenomenon was driving them.

            Reality, for us to be able to understand and interact with it, has to be observable and measurable.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Splitting hairs.”

            Yes, I think you are right more or less. But, I do not see how it impacts the veracity of Premise 2. And apparently, neither does Vilenkin. I mean, it doesn’t seem like you are disagreeing with Premise 2 being true either, am I getting you right? (If I am putting words in your mouth, please forgive me – I’m not trying to, you are presenting your arguments very well.)

            “2- A) You really don’t know that because you simply have no way to model a pre-time pre-energy universe.”

            Actually I DO know that for the following two reasons:

            1. One cannot use a word like “before” if there is not time upon which “before” can be actuated. So, it is better to say “without” creation or “without” origin, where origin includes the concept of time. It sounds picky, but it is actually important.

            2. If time, matter, and energy did not exist without origin (or without creation), then just how can science provide a model that is outside of the parameters of scientific modelling? Will the model just be an empty sheet of paper? Or can it even be “presented” on paper when paper is made of material? 🙂

            “2-B) but you are making that claim. If a god was the root cause of creation, then that god necessarily existed pre-creation. That god then becomes subject to time as well because it must have known a period of creation and a period without it. And then you’re just stuck justifying why an external god can exist, but other causes can’t.”

            Truly, I say to you, I am NOT making the claim that nothing existed without creation. I really am not – I promise you. I am making the claim that nothing materialistic (time, space, matter) existed without creation. Obviously, if God existed, He is not nothing, just as a mind is not nothing. (Unless you have lost your mind – and I am just playing with you here. :-)) You may be confusing “nothing material” with “nothing.”

            As far as God being subject to time, I am NOT making the claim that God was subject to time without creation, although some people have wondered about the possible existence of a metaphysical time to be distinguished from a physical time. I claim that He was timeless without creation, but entered into time (thus, His omnipresence) AT creation. So, if God was timeless without creation, then I don’t have to worry about other causes like material ones, since time, space, and matter did not exist.

            “I am not attempting to disprove the two premises. I am saying, however, that even if the Kalam argument were true it does not necessarily follow that whatever existed pre-creation is a god in any classical sense of the word.”

            This is an interesting point you make, and you make it better than others tend to – I like that. (Let’s not use “pre-creation,” but without creation. I know I am being picky here, please forgive, but it is ultimately important.) Well, I think we have something a LOT like a God if Kalam is true. Just on the first few attributes:

            We DO know that since space, time, and matter had a beginning at the Big Bang, this Cause MUST transcend space, time, and matter. In others words, the Cause must be spaceless, timeless, and non-material. We also know that this Cause MUST be immensely powerful, right, in order to create 100 billion galaxies out of (literally) nothing?!? We can also surmise that this Cause must be personal, in some sense, as It has chosen to create, and only personal agents can create, to our knowledge. Moreover, this Cause has chosen to create (or allow the creation of) persons (that’s us!) – indicating strongly
            that It is personal.

            This Cause is also self-existing, right? We know that either the universe (or multiverses, if they exist) are self-existing OR the Cause of same is self-existing. (Those are really the 2 options we have.) But, since the secular data points toward the universe having a beginning (and overwhelmingly so), then we must conclude that the First Uncaused Cause is self-existing.

            I am being a bit repetitive here, but we have spaceless, timeless, non-material, immensely powerful, arguably personal (which does away with deism) and self-existing. There are other attributes we can arrive at metaphysically, but those 6 sure do sound like a God of some sort, no? (And, they can all be backed up via attributes of the Christian God too, but I won’t get into the Bible here.)

            “More of a comedic exaggeration than a strawman, but as you wish.”

            Hey, I thought it was funny too. 🙂

            “Sudden shift to morality rather than cosmology?”

            Oh, I did that because you were talking about my God raping a 14 year old, and I wanted to point out that rape is just fine in your view.

            “I don’t even understand what objective morality means.”

            It means a moral value that is true even if everyone thinks it is false. For example Jew gassing: is it objectively immoral? Well, on a-theism, if Hitler had conquered the world and either killed or brainwashed everyone who disagreed with him on Jew gassing, it is hard to see how it could be objectively immoral. No one would know it and there would be no Objective Standard to point to if there is no God – that is what Dawkins, Provine, and Ruse seem to be saying in the quotes I gave you.

            “Rape is wrong because it is a violation of mental and physical integrity and choice. So is murder.”

            But, these are technically arbitrary qualifiers you came up with. Another person may think that rape is just fine based on his qualifiers. On a-theism, there would not seem to exist an Objective Standard. And rape is just fine in the animal kingdom too. BTW, abortion violates choice and mental and physical integrity too, yet roughly 97% of a-theists are in favor of the “right” to abortion.

            “certain definition of truth. For example, that which exists.”

            Usually, truth is defined as “that which corresponds to reality.”

            “And to realize that this truth exists, you have to be able to observe or measure its existence, be it by its cause or by its effect.”

            Well, I can prove that there are objective truths without using science actually. And, I can prove the abstract statement “there are no even prime numbers greater than 2” to be true without using science.

            “To take your argument on love: I cannot put “love” in a beaker and distill it, but I can measure the brain activity and chemical discharges of someone greeting their lover, and I can examine their behavior and conclude that some psychological phenomenon was driving them.”

            But, you would not know that it IS love without the extraneous information provided that they are lovers. You would not know even then that it was love. It could be two disgruntled lovers (ever been married? :-)), and what you might be measuring is actually hate or disgust or frustration and calling it “love.”

            “Reality, for us to be able to understand and interact with it, has to be observable and measurable.”

            Simply not true. We can use philosophy – just what I used when I proved the statement “The only objective truths are those that can be verified using science.” to be false. There are lots of other statements that we can prove true and false without observable and repeatable science, like the ones I provided a few paragraphs ago.

            Good discussion – I am much enjoying – thanks!

          • Elie Challita

            Well, this is certainly becoming interesting 🙂

            I use pre-creation interchangeably with “without creation” because I consider temporal and material existence to be one and the same, at least within the limits of our own understanding (matter being energy slowed down to a crawl after all).

            That science does not currently have the models to express something without the use of time or energy does not mean that such a model does not exist, merely that we do not have the correct framework to reference it yet.

            I know many people attack the Kalam argument by saying that causality within the universe does not necessarily mean causality without the universe, but I am not personally a fan of that line of logic. My refutation of the Kalam argument centers more on the description of the universal cause, which you so helpfully supplied:

            I won’t touch the timeless and spaceless part because I have trouble understanding and conceiving it myself. Powerful, however, is a very contentious word. What is powerful, in a universal sense? Are nuclear force powerful? And if they are, are the humans who can break them with scientific tools even more powerful? Because, technically, we have the power to unmake every single particle in the universe given enough time and resources.
            I deeply disagree with self-willed, however. If you are to assume causality without the universe, then you have to accept the corollary that causality does not necessarily imply will. A planet attracts passing asteroids because of gravity, not because it willed it. And stars form under the effect of gravity and accretion, but because some cosmic mind decided to smash matter together until a spark caught.

            Yes, my qualifiers are necessarily technical, because morality would not exist without something to apply it to. An asteroid being broken up in a collision by another lump of rock is destruction completely independent of morality, but a human being dismembering another one is a clearly immoral act of destruction. Now tell me, what is the objective difference between the two since they both resulted in the scattering of matter? Even had a dictator managed to convince the whole world that his actions were correct, they are still immoral not because someone observed them but because they resulted in harm to their victims in a way that would be apparent and observable to any hypothetical observer which could have witnessed them.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “I use pre-creation interchangeably with “without creation” because I consider temporal and material existence to be one and the same”

            Two responses to this:

            A. If temporal and material existence are the same, as the Big Bang seems to show, then it is improper to use temporal adjectives such as “before,” because there was no “before” if time came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang. This is what the overwhelming majority of cosmologists believe, BTW.

            B. It COULD be possible (although I am not advocating this line of thought – just its possibility) that physical time was preceded (I can used “preceded” here now) by some sort of metaphysical time which is not physical. If that is the case, then your statement would be presuppositional on materialism. So, you would want to adjust your statement to “I use pre-creation interchangeably with ‘without creation’ because I consider the possibility of metaphysical time to precede physical time and material existence.” Now, this statement would allow you to use time adjectives prior (I can use it here – see?) to the Big Bang BUT it would defeat a couple of arguments you might make on Kalam:

            1. That there can be no non-temporal causation.

            2. That you are not allowing for a non-materialistic view of time, or, technically, a supernatural view of time.

            So, whichever way you go (A or B above), there are consequences to your choice, in terms of our discussion. Again, I am NOT pushing the B option – I actually do not subscribe to it, but, it actually opens up doors for me on argumentation. It IS an interesting thought experiment for both of us, though, isn’t it? Option B allows you to use temporal adjectives / adverbs though. I am open to that possibility myself – not against it dogmatically, just that I lean the other way, that’s all. It is kind of like the multiverse with me – I would embrace it if we had a shred of evidence for it, other than possible theological ones.

            “That science does not currently have the models to express something without the use of time or energy does not mean that such a model does not exist, merely that we do not have the correct framework to reference it yet.”

            I’m not sure about that. I mean, I could be provocative and call your statement the “supernatural physics of the gaps” fallacy, couldn’t I? 🙂 But, let’s look at the statement another way. I noticed you left the word “matter” out – is that because you know that energy relates directly to matter with E=mc^2, or because you are hoping for something material without creation when matter actually came into existence at the Big Bang? I think that the latter is a logical conflict.

            As a sideline, I worked for decades as a spacecraft designer, with some success I say humbly, and I never saw a model that did not include matter, energy, fields, space, or time in it. But, that is what we are talking about, isn’t it – a scientific model with no science in it? That is why I made the joke about the empty sheet of paper, and then wondered if it could even be a blank sheet of paper because that is a material? 🙂 I was joking on the one hand, but, really wondering how it could be otherwise on the other? I can’t remember which one said it – I think it was Borde, Guth, or Vilenkin – but they said that if we ended up with things popping into existence out of nothing uncaused by anything (my words, not his), then we would not even know what questions to ask of science going forward. (or backward, I might add) This is because Premise 1 of Kalam forms a sort of causal foundation for rational scientific exploration.

            “What is powerful, in a universal sense? Are nuclear force powerful? And if they are, are the humans who can break them with scientific tools even more powerful? Because, technically, we have the power to unmake every single particle in the universe given enough time and resources.”

            No, we are surely not as powerful as a Cause that can bring 100 billion galaxies into existence from a state of no matter, time, or space into a state of matter, time, and space. And, we do NOT have the power to unmake every single particle in the universe, because we are constrained by the Law of Conservation of Matter. (We can change it’s form, but not de-create it. Matter can neither be created nor destroyed, by humans anyway. The Cause, of course, would not be subject to the limitation of a law He designed.) We are constrained by this law, yet a timeless, spaceless non-material Cause is not, and in fact MUST have superseded this law if some presentation of the Big Bang is correct.

            “I deeply disagree with self-willed, however. If you are to assume causality without the universe, then you have to accept the corollary that causality does not necessarily imply will. A planet attracts passing asteroids because of gravity, not because it willed it. And stars form under the effect of gravity and accretion, but because some cosmic mind decided to smash matter together until a spark caught.”

            You are presuppositional on material causes here – yet clearly the Cause resulting from the conclusion of Kalam is NOT material. (It can’t be on the Big Bang.) So, the examples you are providing do not apply without creation obviously (by definition). In fact, there are only two types of objects that can fit the description of a non-material thing that is beyond space and time: an abstract object, like a number, or a disembodied Mind. But, abstract objects do not cause anything, so we are left with the latter.

            Now, if this Mind has entered into time at creation (as I believe) then while It may not cause the sorts of actions which you are describing above, It could certainly sustain the universe in a way so that the physical laws remain in place and ALLOW for those actions to take place. Both of these concepts – a personal Mind that creates and sustains, is what Christians believe when we refer to our God. (It is also an interesting analogy to a God Who permits the free will of His creatures, even though it may result in suffering.)

            “An asteroid being broken up in a collision by another lump of rock is destruction completely independent of morality, but a human being dismembering another one is a clearly immoral act of destruction. Now tell me, what is the objective difference between the two since they both resulted in the scattering of matter?”

            THAT is the question that the Planned Parenthood director seems to be asking in the undercover video, to her shame, IMO. 🙂 But, on a-theism, there IS no difference, because there is no objective value being assigned to the life of the human being who is being dismembered. On theism, it is different of course. You seem to say elsewhere that human life DOES have value, in your view, so you may be answering your own question here.

            Let’s put this in propositional form – which of the premises do you disagree with below and why?

            Premise 1: If there is no God, then objective moral values do not exist.

            Premise 2: Objective evil exists.

            Conclusion 1: Therefore, objective moral values DO exist.

            Conclusion 2: Therefore, God exists.

            Nice talking with you again, Elie – very enjoyable discussion, you are first class!

          • Elie Challita

            Good points, but:
            1- I do not subscribe to “metaphysical time”. As a rule I do not subscribe to metaphysics in general. Classical physics are a model we understand well by now. Quantum physics is one we are currently working on, and I’m sure we will discover a few more in the coming decades. Metaphysics, as far as I’m concerned, is either a system of physics which we do not understand YET, or is simply wishful thinking.

            2- This also applies to the “blank paper model” we were talking about. I see a difference between the God of the Gaps and what you call physics of the Gaps: one is an entity that violates every possible understanding we could gain of the universe and invalidates all laws if it so chooses. The other is a set of rules which we have not yet deciphered, but one we assume can be deciphered once we build the required tools.

            3- Yes, I am presuppositional on material causality. If you are to assume causality outside the universe as well as within it, as the Kalam argument requires, then you also have to assume that causality need not be sentient. Note that I do not say that causality requires the absence of sentience, but your “self-willed” argument makes sentience a prerequisite of causality, which is not necessarily the case. Unless you are assuming a different brand of causality outside the universe than in it, but then we’re walking into pure speculation.

            4- You still have to prove the existence of a disembodied mind, or at least the possibility of its existence. Why do you assume that a mind is capable of existing independently of a brain to operate in?

            5- I disagree with both premises, actually:
            Why can objective moral values not exist without God, and how do you define objective evil?
            I would prefer to hear your definition of objective before delving into that argument though, to avoid going off on a rambling rant over a misunderstanding.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Hey Elie – nice dialogue going – thanks for your reply!

            “1- I do not subscribe to “metaphysical time”.”

            Yes, I actually think that is the best choice for the atheist to make in this argument, and, frankly, that is where most, but not all, Christian theists seem to camp as well. Two of the consequences for sticking with physical time only and denying metaphysical time are:

            A. No “before,” “prior to,” etc adjectives or adverbs are allowed. It is all “without the Big Bang” or “without creation.”

            B. A consequence of A is that one cannot propose any material cause whatsoever for the cosmological beginning of the universe, since matter did not exist without creation. So, the atheist really is stuck with either “the universe popped into existence out of nothing uncaused by anything” or the even more absurd “the universe created itself,” which Hawking has said. In the case of the universe popping into existence out of nothing uncaused by anything, this is an appeal to something far more unbelievable than miracles or magic. At least with magic, there is a magician.

            “one is an entity that violates every possible understanding we could gain of the universe”

            I think it is actually the opposite. Without the validity of Premise 1, the Scientific Revolution never would have occurred. That is because Premise 1 guarantees that the universe is not SO chaotic that we could not assign causes to effects. But, if Premise 1 is invalid, we could not assign causes to effects, because we would see stuff popping into existence out of nothing on a regular basis – and there would be no way to discern between a caused effect and a causeless one. (This is where I was talking about how science would not even know the right questions to ask – the universe would not just be random with some chaos, but overwhelmingly chaotic. And that is not what we observe.)

            As for the entity violating understanding, there is no reason to believe that such is so, any more than a material cause rendering its effect means that such a cause would violate understanding.

            “The other is a set of rules which we have not yet deciphered”

            Well, the rules must be non-material ones if we are using them to describe the state of “without creation,” because there was no material, time, space, or energy without creation. (see B above.) At this point, the atheist is left to proposing supernatural models, which would be a violation of materialistic atheism anyway. 🙂

            “then you also have to assume that causality need not be sentient.”

            I did. I gave you abstract objects, like numbers, or a Mind. The abstract objects are not sentient, but they also do not have the power to choose or create or cause anything. Unless you want to prove otherwise.

            “You still have to prove the existence of a disembodied mind, or at least the possibility of its existence.”

            Well, that is what I did above when I said that there are only two categories of objects that are non-material and outside of space and time: abstract objects or minds.

            “Why do you assume that a mind is capable of existing independently of a brain to operate in?”

            Great question on mind-body dualism! I HAVE to have that obviously, for my proof, because there is no material without creation for a brain. I think, at the outset to my reply, it is wise for us to distinguish between a disembodied mind (including ours) merely existing and a disembodied mind making contact with the physical realm. I shall address the first matter, not the second, at this time. (We have no need whatsoever for the second piece if we are discussing the plausibility of a disembodied Mind existing without creation.) When you think about it, much, if not all, of neuroscience advancements deals with the latter issue.

            Now, as I am typing out this response to you, it is not the product of the stimulation of my brain by a material source, but quite the reverse, my brain (or mind if different) is stimulating the material response of my hands and fingers. What explains the choices I am making as I type these words? It is a purpose that I have set out for myself – NOT a materialistic stimuli. So, on free will, we have a difference between mind and body. If you say we have no free will, in reply, then how can you be even remotely sure that your thoughts are rational as they are nothing but molecules in motion? (That is a defeater of purely causal-fatalistic determination.)

            One study on this matter was performed by a doctor who asked his patient to hold his left hand down while the doctor stimulated that hand (externally, through the patients neurons) to try to lift it. The left hand started to go up, and the patient immediately placed his right hand over it to bring it back down. What explains the response of the right hand to the electrically stimulated left hand? Purpose and (non-material) mind. Along those lines, here is one formal argument for mind-body dualism:

            The Mental Image Argument for Dualism

            1. When I form the image in my mind of a red stop sign, my mental image is red. But no part of my physical brain turns red when I form the image in my mind.

            2. So, my mental state has a property—the property of redness—that my brain state lacks.

            3. If x has a property that y lacks, then x must not be identical with y.

            4. Therefore, my mental state is not identical with my brain state, i.e., my mental state and my brain state are two distinct entities.

            5. Since my mental state is a state of my mind and my brain state is a state of my brain, it follows that my mind has a property that my brain lacks, and so my mind is not identical with my brain, i.e., my mind and my brain are two different entities.

            “I would prefer to hear your definition of objective”

            First cut definition: Something that is independent of anyone’s or everyone’s opinion; a transcendent value. I will give you my arguments for both premises at a later time when we agree on the definition.

            Great talking with you again, Elie!

          • storie

            Good for you. We should ask instead of assuming. If you don’t believe in God there must be a reason.

          • Emmanuel

            So tell us, what do you believe? Do you believe in God? Heaven? Hell? Sin? Can you tell us what sin is? Give us your list of sins. How can we be forgiven of our sins? Start typing……

          • Mary Lyons

            Well, StereoMan, what do you believe?

        • bowie1

          Sarcasm.

        • jennylynn

          Trolling the Christian sites again? Aren’t there any atheist sites you can troll?

          • StereoMan

            If I was a troll, I would insult you and never look back. I’m not doing that. I’m telling you that you’re wrong and misguided.

      • Paige Turner

        I like cake

  • bowie1

    San Francisco…ah yes where you have homosexuals acting like dogs on a leash. And that was from a photo published several decades ago! Can they lower themselves even more?

  • Lark62

    I fail to see the problem. This has nothing to do with separation of church and state.

    For this discussion, there are 3 categories of property.
    – Property that belongs to the government,
    – Private property that belongs to me, and
    – Private property that does not belong to me.

    There are 3 categories of speech.
    – Speech on behalf of the government,
    – My speech = what I want to say
    – Someone else’s speech = what they want to say.

    I can carry signs on government property on the same terms as anyone else, without regard to content. The government cannot favor or disfavor any religious view.

    I can carry signs on my own property as much as I like.

    I do not have the right to carry signs on other people’s property without their consent.

    LIkewise, I can say what I want. However, news corporations are not part of the government. And I don’t own any news organizations. Therefore, it is entirely up to the management of the news organization to decide what they will film and broadcast with equipment they own and by people they employ. I do not get to tell any news organization what they will film or broadcast. I do not have the right to insert myself into the film of any other private person or organization, no matter how wonderful I believe my message to be.

  • Peter Leh

    as he should file suit with the city

  • FoJC_Forever

    That big sports new agency has no room for the Gospel. If you haven’t heard, they have a “body” magazine issue, so it’s obvious what side of the moral fence they’re on.

    It’s amazing that people are afraid of one verse. One verse. It’s not surprising, but still astonishing that they would make such a big deal over a billboard with one Scripture verse reference on it.

    Those who seek the Truth will find Jesus (the) Christ.

  • Commentator

    When the other people post signages of whatever they want sure go ahead, when somebody post one word with semi-colon and numbers in aHe’s already marked..
    Yes, equality and justice is very rampant for the other people.

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      Only Jesus saves. And He offends so much that He got the Cross for it.

  • sammy13

    San Francisco!

  • Jan Garber

    This makes me wonder just how much the church is getting to know the people they are. Putting in positions of leadership.

  • Mogol Yong

    Oh My God what happen to this world now.

  • Mark

    So much for the screening process to ensure people are authentic Christians and not hypocrites before accepting them as members.

    It looks like the leadership at that church only practices church discipline when they have to. That is not leadership, that is following.

  • Gabriel A. King

    Utterly pathetic. Is this what passes for Christianity nowadays ?

  • Rick

    Matthew 18:15-17 “If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16“But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED. 17“If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
    If your church doesn’t know how to recognize sin, then leave that church for it does not represent God’s interests. Jesus was very clear on morality, He referred to the law on multiple occasions and was quite clear when He reflected in Matthew 5 on adultery and stumbling in sin.
    The apostasy of the church continues to grow.

  • Russ Neal

    This is the kind of courage that passes for leadership in an age of individual autonomy. Me me me. You must validate me and all of my feelings or you’re a hater. We are told “feelings are neither right or wrong, they’re just feelings.” No they aren’t. If I covet your wife or your house my feelings are wrong and I need to get my feelings to line up with God’s word.

  • Karen Roach

    church discipline should be used in a situation like this until they repent and their position of leadership should have been revoked.

  • Thomas Wheatley

    Just another sign that the return of Jesus is very soon!Only this time he will come with a rod of iron!

  • serloren

    Considering the amount of adulterous relationships, and other Biblically sinful practices that have long permeated the staff of Hillsong’s home “church” in Australia all the way to the top spot, why would anyone be surprised that their satellites and affiliates are also rife with this kind of stuff?